Is Empathy The Key To Effective Teaching A Systema

Educational Psychology Review (2022) 34:1177–1216
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09649-y
REVIEW ARTICLE
Is Empathy the Key to Effective Teaching? A Systematic

Review of Its Association with Teacher-Student Interactions
and Student Outcomes
Karen Aldrup1 · Bastian Carstensen1 · Uta Klusmann1
Accepted: 3 November 2021 / Published online: 10 March 2022

© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
Teachers’ social-emotional competence has received increasing attention in educa-
tional psychology for about a decade and has been suggested to be an important
prerequisite for the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes.
In this review, we will summarize the current state of knowledge about the asso-
ciation between one central component of teachers’ social-emotional competence—
their empathy—with these indicators of teaching effectiveness. After all, empa-
thy appears to be a particularly promising determinant for explaining high-quality
teacher-student interactions, especially emotional support for students and, in turn,
positive student development from a theoretical perspective. A systematic literature
research yielded 41 records relevant for our article. Results indicated that teachers
reporting more empathy with victims of bullying in hypothetical scenarios indicated
a greater likelihood to intervene. However, there was neither consistent evidence for
a relationship between teachers’ empathy and the degree to which they supported
students emotionally in general, nor with classroom management, instructional sup-
port, or student outcomes. Notably, most studies asked teachers for a self-evaluation
of their empathy, whereas assessments based on objective criteria were underrep-
resented. We discuss how these methodological decisions limit the conclusions we
can draw from prior studies and outline perspective for future research in teachers’
empathy.
Keywords Empathy · Emotional intelligence · Social-emotional competence ·

Teacher-student interaction · Student development
* Karen Aldrup
aldrup@leibniz-ipn.de
1
Department of Educational Research and Educational Psychology, IPN – Leibniz Institute
for Science and Mathematics Education, Olshausenstr. 62, 24118 Kiel, Germany
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1178 Educational Psychology Review (2022) 34:1177–1216
Fig. 1 Heuristic working model on the role of teachers’ empathy in the quality of teacher-student interac-
tions and student outcomes; paths where we expect the closest associations are in bold (also see Brackett
& Katulak, 2007; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009)
Introduction
Students experience a range of emotions—such as enjoyment, anxiety, and bore-

dom—while they attain new knowledge, take exams, or strive to connect with their
classmates (Ahmed et al., 2010; Hascher, 2008; Martin & Huebner, 2007; Pekrun
et al., 2002). Teachers are confronted with these emotions in the classroom and
beyond, and their ability to read their students’ emotional signals and attend to them
sensitively is vital to form positive teacher-student relationships (Pianta, 1999).
Therefore, teachers’ social-emotional characteristics have been suggested as essen-
tial for the quality of teacher-student interactions and, in turn, students’ psychosocial
outcomes (Brackett & Katulak, 2007; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Rimm-Kaufman
& Hamre, 2010). Empathy is one component of teachers’ social-emotional charac-
teristics that appears particularly relevant for the quality of teacher-student inter-
actions from a theoretical perspective. First, empathy is considered as the origin
of human’s prosocial behavior (Preston & de Waal, 2002). Second, in contrast to
social-emotional characteristics such as emotional self-awareness or emotion regula-
tion, empathy explicitly refers to other people rather than to the self, more specifi-
cally, to the ability to perceive and understand students’ emotions and needs (Zins
et al., 2004).
Because of these theoretical arguments and a recent increase in empirical studies
on this topic, the goal of this article is to review prior research investigating the rela-
tionship of teachers’ empathy with the quality of teacher-student interactions and, in
turn, with student outcomes (see heuristic working model in Figure 1). We use effec-
tive teaching here as an umbrella term to refer to both interaction quality and student
outcomes. Summarizing the current level of knowledge on this topic appears par-
ticularly useful for the following reasons. First, various meanings have been attached
to the term empathy, and the diversity of concepts that have been used to refer to
concepts closely related to empathy (e.g., emotional intelligence, perspective taking,
and emotion recognition; also see Batson, 2009; Olderbak & Wilhelm, 2020) make
it difficult to oversee prior research at first glance. Second, the research field has rap-
idly grown throughout the last decade. Thus, to understand foci of prior research and
widely neglected questions is important; for example, the review will uncover pos-
sible specific underrepresented student outcomes (e.g., cognitive vs. psychosocial).
Third, researchers have applied different methodological approaches. For example,
13
Educational Psychology Review (2022) 34:1177–1216 1179
self-report scales and objective tests are available and it is debatable whether both
are equally valid considering the risk of self-serving bias in questionnaires (Brack-
ett et al., 2006). Against this background, it is important to summarize not only the
results from prior studies but also the assessment methods they applied to inform
future studies in terms of which methodological approaches are best suited to obtain
valid results.
A General Theoretical Perspective on Empathy
Historically, two distinct lines of research have evolved around empathy (for an
overview see, e.g., Baron-Cohen & Wheelwright, 2004; Davis, 1983). First, from
the affective perspective, empathy describes the emotional reactions to another per-
son’s affective experiences. According to Eisenberg and Miller (1987), this means
that one experiences the same emotion as the other person. Hatfield et al. (1993)
described the phenomenon of “catching” other people’s emotions as emotional
contagion. Affective empathy can elicit both positive and negative emotions, and
because emotions are multi-componential, the subjective feelings, thoughts, expres-
sions, and physiological and behavioral reactions can differ depending on the type
of emotion (Olderbak et al., 2014; Scherer, 1984). Empathy from the affective per-
spective can also mean to feel something that is appropriate but not identical with
the other person’s emotion, for instance, responding with concern and sympathy to
another person’s sadness (e.g., Batson et al., 2002).
Second, from the cognitive perspective, empathy reflects a person’s ability to
understand how other people feel by taking their perspective and reading their non-
verbal signals (e.g., Wispé, 1986). Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004) pointed
out that theory of mind largely converges with the cognitive definition of empa-
thy. Furthermore, models of emotional intelligence, such as the four-branch-model
(Mayer & Salovey, 1997), include qualities resembling empathy as defined in the
cognitive perspective: the ability to perceive emotions in other people’s faces accu-
rately and to understand emotions, that is, knowing when specific emotions are
likely to arise.
In accordance with Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright (2004), we define empathy as
including both affective and cognitive components (for similar approaches, also see
Davis, 1983; Decety & Jackson, 2004; Preston & de Waal, 2002). This allows for a
more comprehensive understanding of empathy and its consequences because the
affective component of empathy explains why we care for other people in need and
are motivated to react sensitively, whereas the cognitive component explains what
enables people to know and name the feelings of others (Batson, 2009). Preston and
de Waal (2002) also support the idea that cognitive and affective empathy are entan-
gled and complement each other in explaining prosocial behavior. They suggest that
the development of cognitive empathy promotes the “effectiveness of empathy by
helping the subject to focus on the object, even in its absence, remain emotionally
distinct from the object, and determine the best course of action for the object’s
needs” (Preston & de Waal, 2002, p. 20).
13
Considering the central role of empathy in human relationships, which has

also been supported empirically (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Kardos et al., 2017;
Mitsopoulou & Giovazolias, 2015; Sened et al., 2017; Vachon et al., 2014),
its importance in social occupations has been recognized for a long time. For
instance, Rogers (1959) proposed that the therapists’ ability to accurately per-
ceive their clients’ point of view will facilitate the therapeutic process and, in
turn, produce change in personality and behavior. In line with this assumption,
studies with psychotherapists and also with physicians showed that their empathy
predicted their patients’ satisfaction and clinical outcomes (Elliott et al., 2018;
Hojat et al., 2011). Like psychotherapists or physicians and their clients, teachers
are in close interpersonal contact with their students. Hence, it seems plausible to
assume a central role of empathy in their professional lives as well.
The Role of Teacher Empathy
Caring for students and establishing positive teacher-student relationships are a cen-
tral part of teachers’ professional roles (Butler, 2012; O’Connor, 2008; Watt et al.,
2021). Furthermore, providing high levels of emotional support as indicated by
a positive emotional tone in the classroom, sensitive responses to students’ emo-
tional, social, and academic needs, and consideration of their interests is one aspect
of high-quality classrooms (Pianta & Hamre, 2009). To achieve this, the ability to
read students’ (non-)verbal signals—in others words: empathy—is vital (Pianta,
1999). For instance, teachers’ cognitive empathy will help them better identify from
a student’s facial expressions if he or she is sad about a bad grade, angry about an
argument with friends, or bored with specific learning activities. Empathic teachers
will know that students may feel anxious when confronted with challenging tasks
or embarrassed and frustrated when repeatedly unable to answer the teacher’s ques-
tions. Having recognized negative affective states in their students, teachers’ affec-
tive empathy should motivate them to react sensitively to their students’ emotional
needs, provide comfort, and encouragement (Batson, 2009; Weisz et al., 2020). The
prosocial classroom model (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009) also integrates these ideas
and further states that teachers’ social-emotional competence, of which empathy is
one part, should facilitate classroom management.
Effective classroom management means that teachers establish rules and order,
apply appropriate strategies to prevent student behavior problems, and maximize
time on task (Emmer & Stough, 2001). The ability to understand reasons for class-
room disturbances could facilitate behavior management. For example, noticing stu-
dents’ boredom could initiate teachers to choose a different instructional approach
before students start off-task activities (Nett et al., 2010). Furthermore, taking the
perspective of adolescents, teachers will be able to recognize their need for auton-
omy, which would collide with a controlling classroom management strategy
(Aelterman et al., 2019; Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Yet, effective classroom manage-
ment may be less dependent on teacher empathy than emotional support is. After
all, classroom management includes several facets that go beyond empathy, for
example, productive use of time and establishment of rules. For these tasks, specific
13
classroom management knowledges is a key prerequisite (Kunter et al., 2013; Shul-

man, 1986).
Finally, even though not mentioned in the prosocial classroom model, teacher
empathy could also play a role in instructional support, which is the third key aspect
of high-quality teacher-student interaction in addition to emotional support and
classroom management (Klieme et al., 2009; Pianta & Hamre, 2009). Instructional
support comprises clear and engaging instruction that promotes content under-
standing and presents cognitive challenges. In addition, teachers scaffold learning
by providing feedback and initiating content-related class discussions (Pianta et al.,
2012). To adapt instruction to students’ learning needs and design engaging lessons,
it is necessary to recognize when students struggle understanding content and which
activities they find particularly interesting or boring (Bieg et al., 2017; Parsons et al.,
2018). However, in addition instructional support requires high levels of (pedagogi-
cal) content knowledge so again one could assume that empathy plays a less central
role than it does for emotional support (Kunter et al., 2013; Shulman, 1986).
In summary, from a theoretical perspective, a relationship between teachers’
empathy and the quality of teacher-student interactions, in particular with emotional
support, appears plausible. By increasing interaction quality, empathy should also
indirectly promote student development. Here, we distinguish between cognitive
development, that is, outcomes related to students’ learning of subject matter, and
psychosocial development, that is, motivational, emotional, and social variables.
Prior research consistently shows that emotional support is positively associated
with psychosocial outcomes, such as academic interest, self-concept, peer related-
ness, and behavioral engagement, whereas classroom management and instructional
support are most closely related to student achievement (Aldrup et al., 2018; Downer
et al., 2014; Fauth et al., 2014b; Kunter et al., 2013; Nie & Lau, 2009; Ruzek et al.,
2016; Scherer et al., 2016; Wagner et al., 2016; Yildirim, 2012). Our heuristic work-
ing model in Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized associations between teacher
empathy, the quality of teacher-student interactions, and student outcomes. To test
these theoretical assumptions, different methodological approaches are available,
which we will explain next.
Assessment Approaches in Researching Teacher Empathy
Researchers interested in investigating teacher empathy can choose between differ-

ent measurement approaches that are distinct in terms of two key dimensions: objec-
tive assessment versus self-report questionnaires and general versus profession-
specific tools. On the one hand, researchers can apply objective assessments such
as the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT; Mayer et al.,
2002). The MSCEIT comprises subtests measuring a person’s ability to perceive
and understand emotions in others. For example, participants see pictures of faces
and are requested to select the degree to which it expresses each of five emotions.
On the other hand, several self-report questionnaires are available. One prominent
scale is the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980) including subscales on
empathic concern (“I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate
13
than me.”) and perspective taking (“I sometimes try to understand my friends bet-
ter by imagining how things look from their perspective.”). Emotional intelligence
questionnaires typically include subscales on empathy as well. For example, the
other-emotion appraisal subscale of the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale
(Wong & Law, 2002) assesses the ability to perceive emotions in others (“I am sen-
sitive to the feelings and emotions of others.”).
However, it is unclear if people can validly evaluate their own empathy and espe-
cially regarding the cognitive component, which consists of knowledge and skills, a
performance-based approach seems more valid. In line with these concerns, Ickes
(2001) concluded that performance-based measures of empathic accuracy predict
performance in social situations whereas self-report measures do not. Likewise,
Brackett et al. (2006) found no association between undergraduate students’ self-
reported emotional intelligence and the extent to which others perceived them as
friendly and socially engaged but using an emotional intelligence test yielded sta-
tistically significant associations. Self-serving bias could be one issue reducing the
validity of people’s self-reported empathy. For teachers, in particular, exaggerating
their empathy appears likely because establishing close, caring connections with stu-
dents is an important aspect of their professional identities (O’Connor, 2008; Wub-
bels et al., 1993). Finally, the use of self-report questionnaires not only poses the risk
of reduced correlations due to validity issues but also of inflated correlations due to
common method bias when participants report on their empathy and the dependent
variables at the same time (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Thus, whether researchers use
an objective empathy assessment or a self-report questionnaire can largely affect the
results and the degree to which the findings allow for valid conclusion.
In addition, researchers in teacher empathy have to decide on the context-speci-
ficity of their instrument. On the one hand, they can use one of the tools described
above that were designed for use in the general population. On the other hand, they
can choose profession-specific instruments asking teachers about their empathy for
students. A profession-specific assessment has several advantages. Generally, per-
formance in specific contexts is best predicted by variables that refer to the same
context (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Weinert, 2001). Furthermore, in contrast to day-
to-day interactions with other social partners, teacher-student interactions are unique
and characterized by an asymmetric nature (Pianta, 1999). Teachers and students
differ substantially in terms of their knowledge and experiences and this lack of sim-
ilarity may impede empathy (Preston & de Waal, 2002). Accordingly, teachers likely
require profession-specific knowledge about their students’ developmental needs
and concerns to facilitate empathy (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Voss et al., 2011).
Present Study
The present study provides a systematic review of prior empirical research on the
role of teachers’ empathy in effective teaching, which comprises the quality of
13
teacher-student interactions and student development. The relevance of teachers’

empathy and related qualities has been highlighted from a theoretical perspective for
over a decade (e.g., Brackett & Katulak, 2007; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009; Rimm-
Kaufman & Hamre, 2010). Therefore, our goal was to gather what we have learned
so far and whether the empirical evidence is in line with the theoretical claim that
teacher empathy is positively associated with effective teaching. Furthermore, we
aimed to identify questions that have remained unanswered to date in prior research
on the association between teacher empathy and the quality of teacher-student
interactions and student outcomes. For instance, reviewing the literature enabled
us to carve out consequences of empathy that have been underrepresented in prior
research (e.g., specific domains of teacher-student interaction quality or specific stu-
dent outcomes) or methodological challenges that still need to be solved for ensur-
ing the validity of results. From our perspective, this is an important step to research
that can eventually support teachers, teacher educators, school psychologists, prin-
cipals, and other stakeholders in the education system in evaluating the benefits of
promoting teacher empathy.
The heuristic working model (Fig. 1), which is largely based on the proso-
cial classroom model (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009), illustrates the hypothesized
role of teachers’ empathy in the quality of teacher-student interactions and student
outcomes. As outlined above, we expected to find a positive relationship between
teachers’ empathy and the quality of teacher-student interactions, in particular, with
emotional support. After all, empathy allows teachers to understand students’ per-
spectives, read their nonverbal signals, and react with concern to students needing
help—these qualities are all indicators of emotional support (Pianta et al., 2012). In
turn, by promoting high-quality teacher-student interactions, teachers’ empathy can
be assumed to foster student development. However, because student outcomes are
more distal to teachers’ empathy than teacher-student interactions are, we expected
less pronounced associations. Furthermore, because we speculated that empathy
plays a role especially in teachers’ emotional support and because prior research
revealed more consistent association between emotional support and psychoso-
cial rather than cognitive student outcomes (e.g., Fauth et al., 2014b; Kunter et al.,
2013), we hypothesized that empathy would have the weakest relationship with stu-
dent achievement.
Moreover, we speculated that methodological decisions could affect the magni-
tude of the relationships between teachers’ empathy, the quality of teacher-student
interactions, and student outcomes. Thus, our first goal was to determine which
methodological approaches have been applied in the field and consider them in
reviewing the results from prior work. Based on the principle of correspondence,
we expected particularly close associations when a profession-specific rather than
a general assessment tool was used to measure teachers’ empathy (Ajzen & Fish-
bein, 1977). In addition, we hypothesized that the reliance on self-report measures
to assess empathy and its consequences leads to larger correlations because of com-
mon method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003).
13
Method
Literature Search
We conducted our literature search in PsycINFO and Web of Science in October

2020 without date restrictions. To identify relevant articles on teachers’ empathy we
used the following search terms: empathy OR “perspective taking” OR compassion
OR “emotion* intelligence” OR “emotion* knowledge” OR “emotion* awareness”
OR “emotion* understanding” OR “emotion* accuracy” OR “emotion* percep-
tion” OR “emotion* detection” OR “emotion* identification” OR “emotion* recog-
nition” OR “teacher* sensitivity”. Using a broad set of search terms allowed us to
capture constructs which show substantial conceptual overlap with empathy and are
frequently discussed in independent strands of research using different terminology
(Mayer et al., 2008; Olderbak & Wilhelm, 2020).
In PsycINFO, among others titles, abstracts, heading words, tables of contents,
and key concepts were searched for the defined terms. We conducted a thesaurus
search using the exp Teachers/ command to limit results to teacher samples. Further-
more, we limited our search to quantitative studies using the quantitative study.md
command. In Web of Science, the defined terms were searched in titles, abstracts, and
keywords. To limit results to teacher samples, we entered our central search terms
in combination with teacher* / professor* / educator* / lecturer* / faculty*. We
applied the NEAR/3 command, which identifies studies mentioning two terms close
to one another (in our case, three words or less in between empathy and teacher syno-
nyms) in any order. Moreover, we excluded the following publication types: meeting
abstracts, reviews, book reviews, editorial material, letters, and biographical items.
In both databases, we excluded studies written in a language not based on the Latin
alphabet (e.g., Chinese, Hebrew). For studies not written in English, we used Google
Translate to retrieve the necessary information. This yielded 533 records from Psy-
cINFO and 474 records from Web of Science, resulting in 931 records in total after
removing duplicates.
We pursued two strategies to supplement our database search and to identify rel-
evant articles we may have missed. First, we screened the reference list of all studies
identified as eligible for our synthesis after evaluating the full-text. Second, we con-
ducted a Google Scholar search in December 2020 to find articles citing the studies
we had identified as relevant. These strategies produced 134 additional records.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
We included studies in our research synthesis if they met the following criteria.
First, empathy had to be measured in accordance with our definition of empathy.
For instance, we neither included studies measuring empathy in rather broad terms
(e.g., teacher sensitivity assessed with the Classroom Assessment Scoring System;
Pianta et al., 2012) nor did we code effects pertaining to fantasy and personal dis-
tress. Fantasy and personal distress are subscales of the frequently used Interper-
sonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980). However, Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright
13
Fig. 2 PRISMA diagram of the literature search process
(2004) argued that these scales do not measure empathy. For example, the personal
distress scale only partly refers to interpersonal situations (e.g., “In emergency situ-
ations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease.”). Second, studies had to measure an out-
come relevant to our article, that is, aspects of teacher-student interaction or student
outcomes. Third, it was necessary to report the statistical significance of bivariate
correlations or another statistic convertible to a bivariate correlation. However, we
retained studies that reported that an effect was not statistically significant without
providing the exact size of the effect. Fourth, results had to be based on a sample of
at least ten teachers. Regular and special education teachers of all grade levels were
included (i.e., preschool to tertiary education). Importantly, even though teachers
demonstrate different behaviors to realize high-quality teacher-student interactions,
the three overarching domains of emotional support, classroom management, and
instructional support remain relevant from preschool to tertiary education, making
the inclusion of a broad range of education levels possible (Langenbach & Aagaard,
1990; Pianta & Hamre, 2009; Schneider & Preckel, 2017). Fifth, we only retained
the study that provided the most information if multiple articles were based on the
same sample and variables.
Based on these criteria and as illustrated in the PRISMA diagram (Page et al.,
2021) in Figure 2, 768 records were excluded after pre-screening the abstracts of the
931 records obtained through database searching. Pre-screening the abstracts of the
134 records from citation searching and footnote chasing left 61 potentially relevant
records. In total, we could not retrieve a full text for six records. Thus, we proceeded
screening the full-texts of the remaining 160 records from database searching and 58
records from citation searching and footnote chasing for eligibility. These steps were
conducted by the first author, and in addition, the second author read 25% of the
records to verify the inter-rater reliability. Cohen’s κ was .81, and we agreed in 98%
of the articles regarding the questions of whether none versus any of the exclusion
13
criteria were met. Considering reasons for exclusion via the multiple search strate-
gies jointly, twelve did not include a relevant outcome and 13 were excluded for
other reasons (e.g., eight articles did not present quantitative results and one arti-
cle was based on a duplicate sample). In contrast, a comparably large number of
95 articles did not include a relevant predictor. Most often, this was due to emo-
tional intelligence instruments not including empathy-related subscales (e.g., Trait
Meta-Mood Scale, Salovey et al., 1995; Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short Form;
Bar-On, 2002). Similarly, we would have needed to exclude 58 articles because they
assessed relevant variables but did not report bivariate correlations or other statistics
to estimate the relationship of teacher empathy with the quality of teacher-student
relationships and student outcomes. Most often these studies used an emotional
intelligence instrument including empathy-related subscales (e.g., Trait Emotional
Intelligence Qustionnaire, Petrides & Furnham, 2003; MSCEIT, Mayer et al., 2002),
but the analyses were conducted based on the total emotional intelligence scores.
Due to the large number of studies that were relevant for our synthesis but that did
not report the necessary statistics, we decided to contact the authors and ask for
the correlation coefficients if we considered the study particularly informative for
our research questions (i.e., the independent or dependent variable was measured
with instruments going beyond teacher self-report). We contacted 15 authors, six
responded, and one was able to provide the information we requested. Thus, 57 arti-
cles were excluded because no relevant analyses were available. Finally, 31 articles
remained after full-text reading and citation searching and footnote chasing yielded
ten additional records.
Processing of Search Results
For the final set of records, we extracted information on the authors, the year and
type of publication, and the sample (i.e., sample size, teachers’ gender, age, and
years of job experience, school level, and country). Regarding our independent vari-
able, teacher empathy, we retrieved information on (1) the components of empa-
thy (i.e., affective, cognitive, composite); (2) the instrument; (3) whether a teacher
self-report questionnaire, an objective assessment, or other approaches were used;
and (4) whether the instrument took a general, a profession-specific, or a situation-
specific perspective. For our dependent variables, teacher-student interactions, and
student outcomes, we retrieved information on (1) the components of teacher-stu-
dent interaction (i.e., emotional support, classroom management, instructional sup-
port) and student outcomes (i.e., cognitive, psychosocial) and (2) whether a teacher
self-report questionnaire, student questionnaires, student achievement tests, class-
room observations, or other measurements were conducted. Again, the first author
performed these steps and the second author coded 20% of the records to estimate
the inter-rater reliability regarding the coding of the components of empathy and
the outcome categories. Both assigned the same category to 89% of the predictor
and outcome variables. Finally, we retrieved correlation coefficients and information
on statistical significance. To answer our research questions, we primarily relied on
vote-counting and determined the number of effects that were statistically significant
13
at α < .05. However, we also wanted to give the reader an impression of the size of
the effects. Thus, in the few cases where effect sizes other than correlations were
reported, we converted them to allow for between-study comparisons. More specifi-
cally, we used the formulas provided by Thalheimer and Cook (2002) to convert
F-statistics and t-statistics to Cohen’s d and the formulas provided by Borenstein
(2009) to convert odds ratios to Cohen’s d and to convert Cohen’s d to r. In addition,
we recoded the correlations between empathy and negative qualities of teacher-stu-
dent interactions and maladaptive student outcomes to facilitate the interpretation of
the correlation coefficients. Thus, positive correlation coefficients can now be inter-
preted as indicative of effects in line with our heuristic working model (Figure 1).
Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 provide a summary of the reviewed articles organized depend-
ing on the methodological approach that was used. The data and the review proto-
col are available at PsychArchives (Aldrup et al., 2021).
Results
In the following, we will first describe general characteristics of the records included
in this article and will then provide details about the methodological approaches
used. The main part of this section is dedicated to outlining results from prior
research on the relationship of teacher empathy with teacher-student interactions and
student outcomes. Table 5 gives a summary of the statistically significant effects and
the effect sizes for each dependent variable, and Figure 3 provides an overview of
the effect sizes depending on the methodological type of study and the dependent
variable.
General Study Characteristics
This research synthesis is based on 23 journal articles, 15 theses, two proceedings

papers, and one book chapter, which were published between 2004 and 2020 (Md
= 2014, M = 2014, SD = 3.92).The 41 included records reported results from 42
independent samples from 12 different countries—mostly the USA (n = 22), fol-
lowed by Australia and China (n = 4). The teacher samples comprised between 11
and 467 teachers (M = 119.02, SD = 103.10). On average, the teachers were M
= 36.12 years old and 76.8% were female. The majority of studies included only
in-service teachers (n = 35), who had M = 9.08 years of job experience on aver-
age. Most samples were composed either of only secondary school teachers (n =
16) or a combination of secondary school, elementary school, and, in some cases,
early childhood teachers (n = 8). Each five to six samples included exclusively
early childhood teachers, elementary school teachers, or educators at the tertiary
level. Only 14 studies provided information on the school subject the participants
taught: seven samples included teachers from different subject domains, three
assessed English, two mathematics, one physical education, and one law teachers.
The majority of studies (93%) reported only cross-sectional analyses regard-
ing the link between teacher empathy and teacher-student interactions or student
13
Table 1 Overview of studies investigating the association of teachers’ self-reported empathy in general (1–20) and in the professional context (21) with the quality of
1188
teacher-student interactions and student outcomes

Authors Year Type N Empathy Teacher-student Student outcomes #r #α rrange
13
interaction < .05
1. Abacioglu et al. 2020 Article 133 Perspective taking Culturally sensitive 2 2 .25 to .33
teaching
Socially sensitive
teaching
2. Fifield 2011 Thesis 98 Emotional empathy Likelihood to intervene 1 1 .28
in relational aggression
3. Franklin 2014 Thesis 195 Empathic concern Reading achievement 2 1 .00 to .17
growth
Math achievement
growth
4. Fults 2019 Thesis 20 Empathy Influence 2 0 .06 to .07
Proximity
5. Garner et al. 2013 Article 112 Cognitive empathy Likelihood to intervene 3 0 n.a.
in bullying
6. Ghanizadeh & 2010 Article 89 Empathy Teachers’ performance 1 1 .26
Moafian
7. Gottesman 2016 Thesis 99 Empathic concern Emotionally supportive 2 1 .15 to .36
strategies
Punitive strategies
8. Hu et al. 2018 Article 164 Perceiving emotions Emotional support 6 3 −.03 to .38
Classroom organization
Instructional support
9. Khodadady 2012 Article 95 Empathy Rapport 4 4 .05 to .11
Fairness
Qualification
Facilitation
10. Metaxas 2018 Thesis 261 Empathy Likely helping behavior 2 2 .22 to .24
Likely punitive behavior

Table 1 (continued)
interaction < .05
11. Nizielski et al. 2012 Article 300 Other-emotion appraisal Attention to student Student misconduct 2 1 .07 to .24
needs
12. Petsos & Gorizidis 2019 Article 36 Other-emotion appraisal Leadership 8 0 −.11 to .17
Helpful/friendly
Understanding
Student freedom
Uncertain
Dissatisfied
Admonishing
Strict
13. Polat & Ulusoy- 2009 Conference 84 Other-emotion appraisal Emotional intelligence 1 1 .30
Oztan
14. Poulou et al. 2018 Article 80 Perceiving emotions Anxious 3 0 −.01 to .08
Aggressive
Peer problems
15. Poulou 2017 Article 92 Perceiving emotions Social skills 6 0 .00 to .12
Emotional symptoms
Conduct problems
Hyperactivity
Peer problems
16. Singh 2014 Thesis 67 Perspective taking Likelihood to intervene 1 1 .29
in bullying
17. Swartz & McElwain 2012 Article 24 Perspective taking (Non-)support positive 5 2 .09 to .52
emotional displays
(Non-)support negative
emotional displays
Distract negative
emotional displays
13
1189

1190

interaction < .05
13
18. Tettegah 2007 Article 106 Perspective taking Mention victim 12 3 .01 to .21
Empathic concern (in concerned way)
Management of the situa-
tion with the victim
Problem-solving with
victim/perpetrator/class
19. Underwood 2010 Thesis 21 Perspective taking Bullying incidents 2 0 −.45 to −.42
Empathic concern
20. Wen 2020 Article 50 Other-emotion appraisal Interactive teaching Receptivity to curriculum 3 0 .01 to .04
Student receptivity to the
teacher
21. Wu et al. 2019 Article 467 Students’ emotion Teaching performance 2 2 .26 to .51
identification
Empathy
Correlations were recoded so that positive coefficients reflect an effect of empathy in line with our hypotheses, and for each study, we summarize the number of effects that
are statistically significant at α < .05 in the hypothesized direction; aspects of teacher-student interaction quality and student outcomes assessed by other indicators than
teacher self-report are printed in italics

outcomes. However, Franklin (2014) measured empathy at one time point but
included two waves of student outcomes and Aldrup et al., (2020) used longitudi-
nal data across three time points. We only considered the within-wave correlations
to make results from these studies comparable to the majority of articles that were
cross-sectional. Finally, using a randomized pre-post-control group design, Okono-
fua et al. (2016) investigated the effects of an empathic mindset intervention.
Aspects of Empathy and Measurement
In most samples, the focus was on the cognitive (n = 28) as opposed to the affec-
tive component (n = 8) of empathy. In five samples, both cognitive and affective
empathy were assessed and in one sample, a composite measure was used. In terms
of measurement instruments, self-report questionnaires were predominant (n = 29
samples/studies). In the following, we will list the self-report tools that were used in
more than one study. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Davis, 1980) was applied
ten times followed by the Wong and Law Emotional Intelligence Scale (Wong &
Law, 2002), which was used four times. Three other studies measured the ability to
perceive emotions in others as well, but based on the Self-Rated Emotional Intel-
ligence Scale (Brackett et al., 2006). Three studies used the BarOn Emotional Quo-
tient-Inventory, which measures the ability to understand and respect other people’s
feelings (Bar-On, 1997). In contrast to these questionnaires designed for use in the
general population, only one study applied a profession-specific instrument asking
teachers, for example, “I am happy for students if they enjoy happy moments” (Wu
et al., 2019). Likewise, the Bullying Attitudes Questionnaire (Craig et al., 2000;
Yoon, 2004), which was employed in seven studies, measures teachers’ self-reported
empathic concern for student victims of bullying and is therefore situated in the pro-
fessional context as well.
Nine studies used approaches based on objective criteria to discriminate between
more and less empathic teachers rather than using teacher questionnaires. Four stud-
ies employed the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002). Similar tests—the Amsterdam Emo-
tion Recognition Test (van der Schalk et al., 2011), the Situational Test of Emotional
Understanding (MacCann & Roberts, 2008), and the Test of Emotional Intelligence
(Śmieja et al., 2014)—were each used in one study. Friedman (2014) pursued a
slightly different strategy and applied the newly developed Teacher Emotional Intel-
ligence Measure, which asks teachers about their likely response to a hypothetical
disciplinary incident in class in an open format. A coding manual is used to deter-
mine the teacher’s ability to perceive and understand the disputant’s emotions and
to identify how other students in class would feel. Zinsser et al. (2015) conducted
teacher focus groups on the role of emotions in classrooms. Based on teachers’
responses to semi-structured questions, trained coders detected the teachers’ emo-
tion knowledge, that is, their ability to recognize and understand emotions in their
students. Moreover, two studies asked students to report on their teachers’ empathy
(Aldrup et al., 2020; Latchaw, 2017). Thus, like in the studies by Friedman (2014)
and Zinsser et al. (2015), the focus was on teachers’ empathy in the professional
context and even more specifically in the respective subject domain. Finally, one
13
1192
13
Table 2 Overview of studies investigating the association of teachers’ self-reported empathy in specific professional situations with the quality of teacher-student interac-
tions and student outcomes
Authors Year Type N Empathy Teacher-student interaction Student #r #α < .05 rrange
outcomes
22. Byers et al. 2011 Article 62 Empathy with victim of bullying Likelihood to intervene in bullying 2 2 .45 to .51
23. Dedousis- 2009 Article 55 Empathy with victim of bullying Likelihood to intervene in bullying 4 3 .25 to .75
Wallace & Empathy2
Shute1
24. Hammel1 2013 Thesis 84 Empathy with victim of relational Likelihood to intervene in relational 19 2 −.04 to .27
aggression aggression
Perspective taking Closeness
Empathic concern Conflict
25. Hines 2013 Thesis 272 Empathy toward victim of bullying Likelihood to intervene in bullying 1 1 .68
26. Huang 2018 Article 242 Perspective taking Likelihood to intervene in bullying 9 8 .07 to .57
et al.1 Empathic concern
Empathy with victim of bullying
27. Sokol et al. 2016 Article 289 Empathy with victim of bullying Behavioral intentions to intervene in 4 4 .49 to .59
bullying
28. VanZoeren 2015 Thesis 176 Empathy with victim of bullying Likelihood to intervene in bullying 1 1 .44
29. Yoon 2004 Article 98 Empathy with victim of bullying Likelihood to intervene in bullying 1 1 .55
1 2
Includes self-report general empathy scale as well; empathy composed of fantasy in addition to empathic concern and perspective taking; correlations were recoded so
that positive coefficients reflect an effect of empathy in line with our hypotheses, and for each study, we summarize the number of effects that are statistically significant at
α < .05 in the hypothesized direction

article including two samples (Okonofua et al., 2016) reported results from an inter-
vention aimed to induce an empathic mindset in their teacher-student interactions.
However, the intervention study did not include a treatment check so it remains
unknown whether it actually changed teacher empathy.
Effects on Teacher‑Student Interactions
We identified 33 studies (34 samples) investigating the role of empathy in teacher-

student interactions: 28 studies measured aspects of emotional support, ten meas-
ured classroom management, and six measured instructional support. Five studies
applied measures of teacher-student interaction that we could not clearly assign to
one of the interaction domains.
General Teacher‑Student Interaction
Three out of five studies measuring blended aspects of teacher-student interactions

found statistically significant associations (57% of the investigated effects were sig-
nificant and positive; see Table 5). Secondary school teachers who rated their own
ability to perceive other’s emotions higher evaluated their teaching performance
(r = .26, p < .001) more positively (Wu et al., 2019). In addition, in two studies
with English as a foreign language teachers at high schools and private language
institutes (Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2010; Khodadady, 2012), teachers’ self-reported
empathy was linked to their students’ ratings of teacher qualification (i.e., knowl-
edge, self-confidence, comprehensibility; r = .10, p < .01) and students’ overall
ratings of instruction (r = .26, p < .05). In contrast, Corcoran and Tormey (2013)
found no, or even counterintuitive associations of teachers’ test scores in perceiv-
ing (r = –.15, p < .01) and understanding emotions (r = .07, p > .05) with student
teachers’ practicum performance evaluations, for example, the use of appropriate
pedagogic strategies and material or the quality of teacher-student relationships. Pet-
sos and Gorizidis (2019) did not find a relationship between secondary school teach-
ers’ self-reported perception of other’s emotions and the extent to which students
felt their teacher assigned students responsibility (r = .08, p > .05).
Emotional Support
The number of studies finding a statistically significantly positive association

between teachers’ empathy and their emotional support for students (n = 15) slightly
outweighed the number of studies not supporting this link (n = 11) or finding mixed
evidence (n = 2). Because a substantial number of studies focused on teachers’ reac-
tions to bullying among students as one specific aspect of emotional support, we
will summarize results from this line of research separately after describing the find-
ings for emotional support.
13
Table 3 Overview of studies investigating the association of teachers’ objectively assessed empathy with the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes
1194
Authors Year Type N Empathy Teacher-student interaction Student outcomes #r #α < .05 rrange
13
30. Abacioglu et al. 2019 Article 148 Emotion recognition Dismissive and tolerant disciplinary 4 0 −.13 to .06
intervention frequency
31. Barłożek 2015 Chapter 20 Emotion perception Teacher-student relationship 2 2 .45 to .50
Emotion understanding
32. Corcoran & 2013 Article 352 Perceiving emotions Teacher performance 2 0 −.15 to .07
Tormey Understanding emotions
33. Curci et al. 2014 Article 12 Perceiving emotions Self-regulation 18 2 .01 to .16
Understanding emotions Active elaboration
Self-evaluation
Test strategies
Metacognitive sensibility
Perceived ability
Goal setting
Grade point average
Scholastic self-esteem
34. Friedman 2014 Thesis 74 Perception of group’s and Positive climate 18 0 −.16 to .22
disputant’s emotions Teacher sensitivity
Understanding dispu- Regard for adolescent perspectives
tant’s emotions Behavior management
Instructional learning formats
Analysis and problem solving
35. Hall 2009 Thesis 74 Perceiving emotions Content knowledge 16 1 −.21 to .26
Understanding emotions Student learning
Diverse learning
Instructional strategies
Management/motivation
Communication/technology
Planning
Assessment

36. Heckathorn 2013 Thesis 11 Perceiving emotions Affiliation Involvement 14 1 −.16 to .26
Understanding emotions Teacher support
Task orientation
Personal goal attainment
Organization and clarity
Student influence
37. O’Shea 2019 Thesis 31 Emotional understanding Closeness 2 0 −.17 to .29
Conflict
38. Zinsser et al. 2015 Article 32 Emotion knowledge Emotional support 2 0 n.a.
13
1195

1196
13
Table 4 Overview of studies investigating the association of teachers’ empathy as assessed by student-report (39, 40) or induced via an intervention (41a,b) with the qual-
ity of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes
39. Aldrup et al. 2020 Article 124 Teacher sensitivity Math anxiety 12 7 −.06 to .18
Math achievement
Math grade
40. Latchaw 2017 Thesis 180 Emotional awareness of others Expected GPA 1 1 .22
41a Okonofua et al. 2016 Article 39 Empathic mindset Punitive discipline 2 2 .40 to .41
Empathic discipline
41b Okonofua et al. 2016 Article 31 Empathic mindset Teacher respect Suspension rates 2 1 n.a. to .10

Table 5 Number of statistically significant effects and effect sizes per dependent variable
Statistically significant negative effect Not statistically significant Statistically significant positive effect Total
# r < −.30 −.30 ≤ r < −.10 r ≥ −.10 # r < −.10 −.10 ≤ r < .10 r ≥ .10 # r < .10 .10 ≤ r < .30 r ≥ .30
Teacher-student interaction 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 4 0 3 1 7
Emotional support 1 0 1 0 47 4 23 17 16 2 8 6 64
Intervention in bullying 0 0 0 0 13 0 7 3 21 0 7 14 34
Classroom management 0 0 0 0 19 4 12 3 4 2 0 2 23
Instructional support 0 0 0 0 22 1 11 10 4 1 2 1 26
Student outcomes
Cognitive 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 4 0 4 0 11
Psychosocial 2 2 0 0 28 2 24 2 9 7 1 1 39
Total 4 2 2 0 138 11 86 35 62 12 25 25 204
The number of effect size ranges is smaller than the number of effects because not all studies reported the exact effect size
13
1197

Fig. 3 Overview of all effects depending on the methodological type of study and the dependent vari-
ables
Emotional Support Six studies found statistically significant positive associations

with teachers’ empathy but eleven found mixed or no evidence (25% of the inves-
tigated effects were significant and positive, 73% were not significant; see Table 5).
Abacioglu et al. (2020) revealed that primary school teachers evaluating their per-
spective taking more positively reported using more culturally (r = .33, p < .01) and
socially sensitive teaching practices (r = .24, p < .01). Similarly, teachers reporting
a greater ability to perceive others’ emotions considered their attention to students
needs as more pronounced (r = .24, p < .01) (Nizielski et al., 2012). Furthermore,
the theses by Gottesman (2016) and Metaxas (2018) showed that teachers report-
ing more empathy were more likely to choose emotionally supportive strategies
in response to a hypothetical student exhibiting challenging behavior (r = .36 and
r = .24, p < .01). In these studies, teachers from different grade levels participated
spanning pre- to high school. Finally, there were two studies using not only teacher
self-report questionnaires and finding a relationship between empathy and emotional
support. Khodadady (2012) found that high school students perceived better rap-
port with their teacher (r = .10, p < .01) and greater teacher fairness (r = .11,
p < .01) when teachers reported greater empathy. Moreover, secondary school
students reported more positive teacher-student relationships if their teacher attained
higher test scores in perceiving (r = .50, p = .02) and understanding emotions
(r = .45, p = .04) (Barłożek, 2015). However, neither Khodadady (2012) nor
Barłożek (2015) accounted for the nesting of students in classrooms, which is asso-
ciated with a higher risk of false positive findings (Snijders & Bosker, 2012).
Notably, eleven other studies that were not exclusively using teacher self-report
questionnaires provided evidence that was less clear. Hu et al. (2018) assessed pre-
school teachers’ self-evaluations of their ability to perceive other’s emotions and
asked both teachers and external observers to evaluate the quality of emotional
support. Emotional perception was statistically significantly related only to teach-
ers’ self-reported emotional support (r = .31, p < .001). Swartz and McElwain
13
(2012) asked pre-service early childhood teachers about their perspective taking
and observed their responses to children’s emotional displays. Teachers’ perspec-
tive taking was unrelated to their strategies when dealing with positive emotions,
but when children displayed anger or sadness, empathic teachers were more likely
to show supportive (r = .52, p < .01) rather than non-supportive behavior (r = –.44,
p < .05). Friedman (2014) also conducted classroom observations to assess the qual-
ity of emotional support. Middle and high school teachers with higher scores in a
newly developed emotional intelligence test regarding their awareness, perception,
and understanding of students’ emotions did not establish a more positive climate
and did not show more sensitivity or regard for students’ perspectives. In addition,
preschool teachers demonstrating superior emotion knowledge in a focus group were
not observed to show more emotional support in the study by Zinsser et al. (2015).
In a similar vein, Heckathorn (2013) did not find a statistically significant positive
and even one negative correlation between teachers’ perception and understanding
of emotions as assessed with the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) and the degree to
that nontraditional evening graduate adult master’s level students perceived affilia-
tion among learners, opportunities to influence lessons, and teacher support in terms
of sensitivity and encouragement. Furthermore, high school teachers’ tests scores
in emotion understanding were unrelated to their self-reported quality of teacher-
student relationships (O’Shea, 2019) and participation in an empathic mindset inter-
vention did not make middle school students feel more respected by their teacher—
however, the intervention had an effect for students with a history of suspension
(Okonofua et al., 2016). In the thesis by Fults (2019), there was no association
between middle school teachers’ self-reported empathy and students’ perception of
proximity and Wen (2020) did not establish a link between college teachers’ self-
reported ability to recognize other people’s emotions and student-reported receptiv-
ity and liking of the teacher. Likewise, Petsos and Gorizidis (2019) found no sta-
tistically significant correlation between junior high school teachers’ self-reported
emotion perception of others and students’ perceptions of their teachers’ helpful
and friendly behavior and their understanding of students as opposed to displaying
dissatisfaction and admonishing students. Finally, middle school teachers reporting
greater empathy with victims of bullying or general perspective taking and empathic
concern were not more likely to perceive their teacher-student relationship as close
and free of conflict (Hammel, 2013; only empathic concern and closeness: r = .27,
p < .05). To summarize, teachers who perceived themselves as empathic reported
providing more emotional support. However, this impression was rarely evident in
students’ and observers’ perspectives. Furthermore, higher test scores in empathy
were unrelated to the quality of emotional support.
Likelihood to Intervene in Bullying Nine of the twelve studies in this strand of

research found an effect (62% of the investigated effects were significant and posi-
tive; see Table 5). Seven studies, including teachers from preschool to the secondary
school level, found that teachers feeling empathic concern for a hypothetical student
who was a victim of bullying reported a greater likelihood of intervening in the bul-
lying situation (Byers et al., 2011; Dedousis-Wallace & Shute, 2009; Hines, 2013;
Huang et al., 2018; Sokol et al., 2016; VanZoeren, 2015; Yoon, 2004). In these
13
studies, the effect sizes were moderate to large (all rs > .30; see Figure 3). Likewise,
teachers’ self-reported general empathic concern, perspective taking, and tendency
to experience the feelings of others were positively associated with their likelihood
to intervene in bullying from early childhood to college education (Dedousis-Wal-
lace & Shute, 2009; Fifield, 2011; Huang et al., 2018; Singh, 2014). One exception
of this pattern was the thesis by Hammel (2013). Only when the hypothetical student
was the victim of social exclusion, but not when students became victims of gossip
or when friends threatened to end a relationship, was there a statistically signifi-
cant correlation between middle school teachers’ empathy with the victim and their
likelihood to intervene. Moreover, teachers’ general empathic concern and perspec-
tive taking were not statistically significantly related with the likelihood to inter-
vene. Similarly, Garner et al. (2013) did not find a relationship between prospective
teachers’ self-reported cognitive empathy and their likelihood to intervene in bul-
lying scenarios. Finally, when pre-service elementary and secondary teachers did
not indicate their likelihood to intervene in bullying via self-report, but when they
were asked in an open-format with researchers coding their responses, there was
less evidence of a relationship between teachers’ self-reported empathic concern and
perspective taking with their responses to bullying (Tettegah, 2007; 3 of 12 statisti-
cally significant effects).
Classroom Management
In seven of ten studies spanning early childhood to tertiary education, there was no
statistically significant relationship between teachers’ empathy and classroom man-
agement (Abacioglu et al., 2019; Friedman, 2014; Fults, 2019; Gottesman, 2016;
Hall, 2009; Heckathorn, 2013; Petsos & Gorizidis, 2019). As Table 5 shows, 83%
of the investigated effects were not statistically significant. Except for Gottesman
(2016), these studies used other than teacher self-report measures for either empathy
or classroom management. In line with the trend to find an association especially
when both predictor and outcome are measured via teacher self-report, Hu et al.
(2018) found no association between preschool teachers’ self-reported emotional
perception and observer ratings of their classroom management (r = .03, p > .05),
but they did find a link with teachers’ own perceptions of their classroom man-
agement (r = .38, p < .001). However, two studies revealed a positive association
between empathy and classroom management. In her thesis, Metaxas (2018) showed
that primary and secondary school teachers reporting being more empathic were
less likely to choose punitive behavior (r = −.22, p < .01) in response to a hypo-
thetical challenging student. Relatedly, Okonofua et al. (2016) revealed that middle
school teachers participating in an empathic mindset intervention were more likely
to consider empathic disciplinary strategies (r = .40, p < .01) rather than punitive
approaches (r = −.41, p < .01). However, these results are again based on teachers’
evaluations of hypothetical scenarios.
13
Instructional Support
In three of six studies, all relying not only on teacher self-report questionnaires,
there was no evidence (85% of the investigated effects were not significant; see
Table 5) for a relationship between teachers’ empathy and the levels of instruc-
tional support they provide for students in secondary school or for college students
(Friedman, 2014; Hall, 2009; Wen, 2020). Even though Heckathorn (2013) found
that adults in an evening master’s program rated those teachers who obtained higher
test scores in perceiving emotions as providing more organized and clear instruction
(r = .26, p < .01), there was no statistically significant correlation with understand-
ing emotions. Moreover, neither perceiving nor understanding emotions were asso-
ciated with personal goal attainment defined as the degree to which the teacher
attended to students’ individual learning needs and interests. Notably, these results
are based on only N = 11 teachers. Again, Hu et al. (2018) found a link between
preschool teachers’ self-reported emotional perception with their self-reported qual-
ity of instructional support (r = .36, p < .001), but not with observers’ ratings of
instructional support (r = −.03, p > .05). Khodadady (2012) obtained a small, but
statistically significant positive relationship between high school teachers’ self-
reported empathy and student-reported facilitation (r = .05, p < .05). However, the
nesting of students within classes was not considered in the analyses so caution is
warranted in interpreting this finding.
Effects on Student Outcomes
We identified twelve studies investigating the role of empathy in student outcomes:

four studies measured cognitive student outcomes and ten measured psychosocial
student outcomes including, for example, student engagement, conduct problems, or
prosocial behavior.
Cognitive Student Outcomes
Two of four studies, which assessed teacher empathy via student report and a test
instrument, provided less support (64% of the investigated effects were not signif-
icant; see Table 5) for the role of secondary school teacher empathy in students’
cognitive outcomes in terms of achievement test scores, grades, and students’ self-
reported abilities in mathematics (Aldrup et al., 2020; Curci et al., 2014). Frank-
lin (2014) found a positive relationship between elementary school teachers’
self-reported empathic concern and students’ reading (r = .17, p < .05), but not
mathematics achievement growth (r = .00, p > .05). Latchaw (2017) revealed that
college students rating their teachers’ awareness of others’ emotions higher expected
a better end-of-course grade (r = .22, p < .01).
13
Psychosocial Student Outcomes
Seven of ten studies found little evidence of a relationship between teacher empathy
and students’ psychosocial outcomes (72% of the investigated effects were not sig-
nificant; see Table 5). More specifically, preschool teachers who reported a greater
ability in perceiving the emotions of others neither noticed more social skills nor
fewer peer problems, general anxiety, emotional problems, aggressiveness, conduct
problems, or hyperactivity among their students (Poulou, 2017; Poulou et al., 2018).
Contrary to expectations, students even reported more frequent bullying in middle
schools employing teachers who rated their empathic concern and perspective taking
higher (Underwood, 2010). Moreover, teachers at integrated schools who perceived
themselves as more empathic did not rate their students as showing less misconduct
in class (Nizielski et al., 2012) and students did not indicate greater receptivity and
involvement in these teachers’ courses (Wen, 2020). Likewise, in two small stud-
ies (N ≤ 12) with teachers at a junior high school and in an adult evening master’s
program, respectively, there was no association between teachers’ ability to perceive
and understand emotions as measured with the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) and
student-reported involvement in class (Heckathorn, 2013), their scholastic self-
esteem, metacognitive beliefs, and goal setting (Curci et al., 2014; one of 14 correla-
tions was statistically significant, but all rs < .12).
In contrast, Aldrup et al., (2020) showed that secondary school students who
perceived their mathematics teacher as more sensitive reported lower mathemat-
ics anxiety and were appraised as less anxious by their parents (−.18 ≤ r ≤ −.07).
Okonofua et al. (2016) found that middle school students’ suspension rates were sta-
tistically significantly lower among teachers who had participated in an empathic
mindset intervention (r = –.10, p < .001). Furthermore, Polat and Ulusoy-Oztan
(2009) showed that primary school students rated their emotional intelligence higher
when their teachers evaluated their own ability to perceive other people’s emotions
more positively (r = .30, p < .01).
Discussion
Empathy is considered one factor determining prosocial behavior among all humans
(Preston & de Waal, 2002) and argued to be relevant for teachers’ professional effec-
tiveness given the high social and emotional demands inherent to daily interactions
with students (Brackett & Katulak, 2007; Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Against
this background, we aimed to review the empirical evidence for these theoretical
assumptions and identified 41 journal articles, theses, chapters, and conference
papers providing insights to the role of teacher empathy in the quality of teacher-stu-
dent interactions and student outcomes. To date, most research has accumulated on
the relationship between teachers’ empathy and their emotional support for students,
whereas we know much less about other domains of teacher-student interactions and
student outcomes. Overall, there was limited evidence for a statistically significant
positive association between empathy and any of the dependent variables considered
in this research synthesis. The exception were studies relying exclusively on teacher
13
self-report for assessing empathy and their own (likely) behavior in terms of quality
of teacher-student interactions (e.g., Abacioglu et al., 2020). In this regard, the most
consistent finding was that teachers reporting greater empathy for a bullied student
in a hypothetical scenario indicated a greater likelihood to intervene in the situation
(e.g., Sokol et al., 2016; Yoon, 2004). Even though these studies show that feeling
concerned for students in specific situations makes teachers more motivated to help
them, it remains unknown whether teachers would actually behave as intended in a
real classroom situation and whether they would choose appropriate interventions.
Thus, at first glance, these findings do not support the theoretical assumptions of an
association of teacher empathy with the quality of teacher-student interactions and
student outcomes.
One explanation might be that other social-emotional characteristics are more
important for predicting the quality of teacher-student interactions, emotional sup-
port in particular, and student outcomes. For example, recent studies linked teachers’
mindfulness—a nonjudgmental awareness and acceptance of one’s present experi-
ences (Brown & Ryan, 2003)—to higher levels of emotional support for students
(Jennings, 2015; Jennings et al., 2017). Furthermore, there is growing evidence
regarding the importance of teacher well-being. Prior studies found a positive asso-
ciation between teachers’ work enthusiasm with emotional support, student motiva-
tion, and achievement, whereas the reverse was true for burnout symptoms (Arens
& Morin, 2016; Klusmann et al., 2016; Keller et al., 2016; Kunter et al., 2013; Shen
et al., 2015). However, it is also possible that researchers have not been able to dis-
cover a relationship between empathy, the quality of teacher-student interactions,
and student outcomes because they have not attended to some key methodologi-
cal and conceptual issues that we consider vital for obtaining valid results in future
research.
Avenues for Future Research
Dealing with Common Method Bias and the Valid Assessment of Empathy
The majority of studies we reviewed applied teacher self-report measures of empa-

thy in combination with self-report measures of interaction quality and student
outcomes. This poses the risk of common method bias, which can cause positively
biased associations between predictor and outcome variables (Podsakoff et al.,
2003). Therefore, research can only provide valid conclusions about the role of
teacher empathy in the quality of teacher-student interactions and student outcomes
if more studies combine different data sources. To achieve this, researchers in the
field have pursued different strategies.
One approach is to treat common method bias by measuring the dependent vari-
able via student questionnaires, classroom observations, or achievement tests (e.g.,
Hu et al., 2018). This approach enables researchers to investigate whether teacher
empathy becomes manifest in teachers’ actions and whether others notice differ-
ences between teachers with higher versus lower empathy. Considering the perspec-
tives of other raters except for the teacher appears particularly important because
students and external observers often perceive interaction quality differently than
13
the teachers themselves do (e.g., Fauth et al., 2014a; Kunter & Baumert, 2006). In
this review, ten studies combined teacher self-report measures with other sources
for assessing the outcome. The evidence in these studies was mixed and some found
at least partial support for the hypothesis that empathy is associated with effective
teaching (Franklin, 2014; Ghanizadeh & Moafian, 2010; Khodadady, 2012; Polat
& Ulusoy-Oztan, 2009; Swartz & McElwain, 2012) whereas others did not (Fults,
2019; Hu et al., 2018; Petsos & Gorizidis, 2019; Underwood, 2010; Wen, 2020).
One explanation for the heterogeneous results could lie in the comparably small
sample sizes. Only two of the studies were based on more than 100 participants—a
sample size that is required for detecting medium effects—and five included 50 or
less. Small sample sizes reduce the statistical power to detect meaningful effects.
Yet, there is also evidence that effect sizes are larger in small samples, perhaps,
because they are less likely to be published when yielding insignificant results than
expensive larger studies (Slavin & Smith, 2009). Thus, future studies should include
a sufficient number of teachers to avoid these issues.
Another reason for the inconsistent findings could be the construct validity of
self-report empathy measures. Caring for others is at the core of teachers’ profes-
sional identity so self-serving bias could cause teachers to describe themselves more
positively in terms of their empathy level (O’Connor, 2008; Wubbels et al., 1993).
Furthermore, the self-assessment of social-emotional abilities is now questioned as
correlations with objective tools are rather small but objective tools appear more
closely related to social behavior (Brackett & Mayer, 2003, Brackett et al., 2006).
Therefore, the use of tests rather than self-report questionnaires (e.g., Hall, 2009)
could improve the measurement of empathy in future research. At the same time,
this strategy provides the opportunity to avoid common method bias. However, the
few studies that have pursued this strategy have mostly yielded insignificant results.
Again, only two of nine studies included more than 100 participants and five drew
on only 32 teachers or less. Thus, studies with appropriate power are needed to eval-
uate the potential of objective empathy assessments.
In addition, we expected the closest relationship between empathy and emotional
support, but as evident in Figure 3, many of the methodologically sophisticated
studies included either other domains of teacher-student interaction quality or stu-
dent outcomes (e.g., Corcoran & Tormey, 2013; Hall, 2009). Thus, it was less likely
to find pronounced effects in these studies from a conceptual point of view.
Finally, except for Friedman (2014), previous work with objective assessments
has relied on tools that appear rather distant from teachers’ daily work with students.
For example, in one subtest of the frequently used MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002),
participants see images of landscapes and artwork and evaluate the degree to which
the pictures express certain emotions. Consequently, it appears necessary to use
measurement instruments more closely aligned with teachers’ professional tasks.
A Profession‑Specific Perspective on Teacher Empathy
As the findings from our review showed, studies investigating the relationship
between empathy with victims of bullying and the likelihood to intervene yielded
13
the most robust and substantial correlations. In addition to the fact that both were
assessed from the teacher perspective, one explanation for the close associa-
tion could be that independent and dependent variable refer to the same situation.
Another finding supporting the value of a profession-specific approach is that
among the few studies of this kind, which either asked students about their teach-
ers’ sensitivity for their emotions or intervened in teachers’ empathy with students
(Aldrup et al., 2020; Okonofua et al., 2016), found statistically significant associa-
tions with interaction quality and student outcomes. However, only a few research-
ers have adapted and developed empathy questionnaires and tests that explicitly ask
teachers to refer to the professional context; hence, more instruments of this kind are
needed (Friedman, 2014; Wu et al., 2019; Zinsser et al., 2015). To go beyond paper-
pencil formats and for a realistic assessment of cognitive empathy, the dyadic inter-
action paradigm (Ickes, 2001), which is frequently applied in empathic accuracy
research, could serve as a guideline. Here, a dyad’s interaction is videotaped and
each participant individually writes down their thoughts and feelings during specific
episodes. Then, the partner’s task is to indicate what their counterpart experienced.
In researching teachers’ empathy, one could videotape teacher-student interactions.
Furthermore, teachers’ affective empathy has been only assessed via questionnaires
thus far, which appears reasonable because it reflects a person’s subjective experi-
ences. Nonetheless, one could also consider using teachers’ facial expressions in
response to students’ emotions as an indicator of their affective empathy (e.g., Marx
et al., 2019).
Moreover, in developing profession-specific instruments, considering differ-
ent levels of specificity would allow us to gain additional insights about the degree
to which teacher empathy is context-dependent. One option would be a situation-
specific assessment as was done in bullying research (e.g., Yoon, 2004). Likewise,
Friedman (2014) developed a tool for measuring teachers’ ability to perceive and
understand students’ emotions during a hypothetical disciplinary incident in class.
Another option would be a class-specific assessment. At the secondary school level
in particular, teachers see different groups of students each day and it may be easier
for them to empathize with some than with others, for example, depending on the
students’ age or the number of lessons they see each other per week. Furthermore,
Frenzel et al. (2015) showed that teachers’ emotions largely depend on the class
they teach. Being in a class that elicits enjoyment rather than anger or anxiety could
facilitate cognitive empathy because positive emotions promote cognitive processes
(e.g., broaden-and-build theory, Fredrickson, 2001). Of course, one could think of
several other relevant specific situations such as empathy with students struggling
with content or with students from specific backgrounds who are at risk of adverse
developmental trajectories. For example, Warren (2015) developed a scale measur-
ing teacher empathy for African American males.
Importantly, when using situation- or class-specific assessments, we suggest
aligning the specificity of the empathy measure and the dependent variable of inter-
est. We will give an example to illustrate this point: The instrument developed by
Friedman (2014) measures empathy in a very specific situation, but does not tell us
about the teachers’ ability to recognize their students’ emotions and take their per-
spectives in other contexts. Hence, finding an association with dependent variables
13
closely connected to the specific situation of the empathy measure is most likely,
whereas a relationship with broader variables appears less probable. Finding no rela-
tionship between Friedman’s (2014) measure of empathy and classroom observa-
tions of teacher-student interactions is in line with this idea. Inversely, this means
that one should refrain from using situation- or class-specific instruments when the
research interest is in explaining teaching effectiveness more broadly.
Interplay with Other Teacher Characteristics and Students’ Prerequisites
In addition to methodological challenges, our unexpected finding could be because

teacher empathy alone is not sufficient to achieve high-quality teacher-student interac-
tions and positive student outcomes. First, a hierarchical organization of social-emo-
tional competence is hypothesized with empathy being a precursor of more advanced
abilities such as emotion and relationship management (Joseph & Newman, 2010;
Mayer & Salovey, 1997). From this perspective, it can be argued that teacher empathy
can only be effective in combination with knowledge and skills about effective behav-
ior in social situations. In line with this, Aldrup, Carstensen et al. (2020) showed
that teachers with greater knowledge about relationship management reported pro-
viding more emotional support and perceived their relationships with students more
positively.
Second, it is possible that teacher empathy only shows when teachers are moti-
vated to act accordingly. In other words, they may not always display their full
empathic potential. Considering the finding that teachers’ emotions largely depend
on the group of students they teach (Frenzel et al., 2015), one could speculate that
teachers will be more motivated to demonstrate empathic behavior in a class they
like, making a class-specific assessment of empathy particularly interesting in this
line of research. Further aspects, such as emotional stability, pro-sociality, or self-
efficacy, have been suggested as relevant determinants of the degree to which people
perform empathic behavior (Cavell, 1990; DuBois & Felner, 2003; Rose-Krasnor,
1997). Furthermore, teacher empathy may interact with their well-being such that
burnout and the lack of emotional resources impair teachers’ empathy (Trauernicht
et al., 2021). Likewise, other teacher characteristics may mask their empathy. For
instance, the belief that strict discipline is needed because children are naturally
rebellious and lazy could lead teacher to suppress empathic tendencies (c.f., Rimm-
Kaufman et al., 2006).
Third, empathy may not always be beneficial as is evident in the phenomenon
of compassion fatigue. Compassion fatigue denotes a loss of interest in empathiz-
ing with others and a lack of energy, which can result from self-giving work with
people who are in pressing need for help (Adams et al., 2006; Knobloch Coetzee
& Klopper, 2010). In other words, excessive empathy puts people at risk of suffer-
ing themselves. For example, teachers with greater empathy for victims of bully-
ing also feel angrier and sadder when witnessing bullying incidents (Sokol et al.,
2016). To alleviate negative feelings and protect one’s emotional resources, teachers
may eventually distance themselves from their students (for a similar line of rea-
soning, also see Maslach et al., 2001). In line with this, prior research showed that
people who feel distressed by seeing other people suffering avoid the situation or
13
even show aggressive reactions (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1990). Hence, both low and
extremely high levels of teacher empathy might be problematic potentially causing
a nonlinear relationship with the quality of teacher-student interactions and student
outcomes. Considering this, teachers may only benefit from extremely high levels
of empathy if they are able to distance themselves from the emotional demands of
their work. Potentially interesting moderators of the empathy-outcome relationship
include emotion regulation and mindfulness. Prior research shows that they reduce
negative emotions so they could be a protective resource for highly empathic teach-
ers (Klingbeil & Renshaw, 2018; Lee et al., 2016).
In addition to investigating the interplay between empathy and other social-emo-
tional teacher characteristics, we suggest considering whether students’ prerequisite
moderate the role of empathy in the quality of teacher-student interactions and stu-
dent outcomes. For example, prior research shows that teachers play a more promi-
nent role in the development of students at risk of adverse educational trajectories
(Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Klusmann et al., 2016). Hence, teacher empathy might be
particularly relevant for students with a low socioeconomic status or with cognitive
or social-emotional difficulties. Another important aspect might be students’ age.
On the one hand, one could assume that teacher empathy is particularly relevant for
young students, for example, because they are still more dependent on adult support
to regulate their emotions (Calkins & Hill, 2009). On the other hand, student disen-
gagement represents a particular challenge during adolescence and teachers often
struggle to meet adolescents’ developmental needs (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Wang
& Eccles, 2012). Thus, teachers who consider adolescents’ perspectives and care
for their feelings might be particularly important during this phase. In line with this
assumption, meta-analytic evidence shows that the association between the teacher-
student relationship and student engagement and achievement gets closer for older
students (Roorda et al., 2017).
Limitations
In this article, we aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of prior

research on the relationship between teacher empathy, teacher-student interac-
tions, and student outcomes. Therefore, we included studies from different lines
of research that diverge in their operationalization of empathy. For example and as
outlined in the Results section, even though both the Interpersonal Reactivity Index
(Davis, 1980) and the MSCEIT (Mayer et al., 2002) were designed to measure
whether one is able to consider other’s perspectives, the types of questions/tasks dif-
fer substantially. Thus, it is unclear whether all studies actually measured the same
underlying construct. A similar problem applies to our dependent variables where
there was large heterogeneity in terms of the instruments.
Furthermore, we decided to consider theses, proceedings papers, and book chap-
ters in addition to studies from peer-reviewed journals. Almost half of the studies
were not from journal articles. Thus, our approach allowed for a more exhaustive
overview of the field and helped to reduce the risk of publication bias. The large
number of studies with insignificant results let us conclude that our strategy for
reducing publication bias was successful. However, it may have reduced the quality
13
of the included studies. Even though follow-up analyses revealed no differences

between the publication types in terms of sample size or the avoidance of com-
mon method bias, we cannot rule out other potential limitations such as lower qual-
ity of data collection, preparation, and analyses in studies from sources other than
journals.
In addition, a large number of studies assessed constructs relevant for our review
without reporting correlation analyses. Due to our concerns about the reliance on
teacher self-report measures for assessing the independent and dependent variables,
we decided to contact the authors only when they had pursued a different methodo-
logical approach. Because studies that included only teacher questionnaires typically
found closer associations, we should note that our decision might have reduced the
number of statistically significant results.
Finally, a meta-analytical analysis would have been ideal to investigate the extent to
which methodological study characteristics moderate the size of effects (Borenstein,
2009). Nonetheless, we decided against this approach as we identified only a relatively
small number of relevant studies for most dependent variables. In addition, we had the
impression that computing an overall effect size was not appropriate because of the
huge heterogeneity in the research field. The different methodological approaches are
not equally valid for assessing empathy and sophisticated studies typically included
small samples reducing their weight in meta-analyses.
Conclusion
Theoretical models (e.g., Jennings & Greenberg, 2009) emphasize the relevance of
teachers’ empathy for high-quality teacher-student interactions and positive student
outcomes, but to date, only limited evidence supports this claim. Nonetheless, rather
than abandoning the idea that teacher empathy is a relevant construct, we call for
methodologically sophisticated studies that go beyond teacher self-report and allow
for robust conclusions. Perhaps, we would otherwise overlook an important social-
emotional teacher characteristic, where there is an urgent need for action given that
teachers frequently struggle to recognize student emotions (Karing et al., 2013; Spi-
nath, 2005).
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licen
ses/by/4.0/.
13
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the review
*Abacioglu, C. S., Volman, M., & Fischer, A. H. (2019). Teacher interventions to student misbehav-
iors: The role of ethnicity, emotional intelligence, and multicultural attitudes. Current Psychology.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00498-1
Adams, R. E., Boscarino, J. A., & Figley, C. R. (2006). Compassion fatigue and psychological distress
among social workers: A validation study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76(1), 103–108.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.76.1.103
*Abacioglu, C. S., Volman, M., & Fischer, A. H. (2020). Teachers’ multicultural attitudes and perspective
taking abilities as factors in culturally responsive teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 90(3), 736–752. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12328
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Haerens, L., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J. R. J., & Reeve, J. (2019).
Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The
merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 497–521. https://doi.
org/10.1037/edu0000293
Ahmed, W., van der Werf, G., Minnaert, A., & Kuyper, H. (2010). Students’ daily emotions in the class-
room: Intra-individual variability and appraisal correlates. The British Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 80(4), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709910X498544
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empiri-
cal research. Psychological Bulletin, 84(5), 888–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.888
Arens, A. K., & Morin, A. J. S. (2016). Relations between teachers’ emotional exhaustion and students’
educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 800–813. https://doi.org/10.
1037/edu0000105
Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B., & Klusmann, U. (2021). Is empathy the key to effective teaching? A sys-
tematic review of its association with teacher-student interactions and student outcomes.
PsychArchives.https://doi.org/10.23668/PSYCHARCHIVES.5209
Aldrup, K., Carstensen, B., Köller, M. M., & Klusmann, U. (2020). Measuring teachers’ social-emotional
competence: Development and validation of a situational judgment test. Frontiers in Psychology,
11, 217. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00892
Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., & Trautwein, U. (2018). Social support and classroom
management are related to secondary students’ general school adjustment: A multilevel structural
equation model using student and teacher ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(8),
1066–1083. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000256
*Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., & Lüdtke, O. (2020). Reciprocal associations between students’ mathematics
anxiety and achievement: Can teacher sensitivity make a difference? Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 112(4), 735–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000398
*Barłożek, N. (2015). EFL Teachers’ affective competencies and their relationships with the students.
In Piechurska-Kuciel, Ewa & Szyszka, Magdalena (Ed.), The ecosystem of the foreign language
learner (pp. 97–115). Springer.
Bar-On, R. (1997). BarOn Emotional Quationt Inventory (EQ-i): Technical manual. Multi-Health
Systems.
Bar-On, R. (2002). Bar-On Emotional Quotient Inventory: Short (EQ-i:S): Technical manual. Multi-
Health Systems.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with
Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 34(2), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.
19833.00
Batson, C. D. (2009). These things called empathy: Eight related but distinct phenomena. In J. Decety
& W. J. Ickes (Eds.), Social neuroscience series: The social neuroscience of empathy (pp. 3–16).
MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262012973.003.0002
13
Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Lishner, D. A., & Tsang, J.-A. (2002). Empathy and altruism. In C. R. Sny-
der & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 485–498). Oxford University
Press.
Bieg, M., Goetz, T., Sticca, F., Brunner, E., Becker, E., Morger, V., & Hubbard, K. (2017). Teaching
methods and their impact on students’ emotions in mathematics: An experiencesampling approach.
ZDM, 49(3), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0840-1
Borenstein, M. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Brackett, M. A., & Katulak, M. A. (2007). Emotional intelligence in the classroom: Skill-based training
for teachers and students. In J. Ciarrochi & J. D. Mayer (Eds.), Applying emotional intelligence: A
practitioner’s guide (pp. 1–27). Psychology Press.
Brackett, M. A., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing
measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1147–1158.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254596
Brackett, M. A., Rivers, S. E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. (2006). Relating emotional abilities
to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intel-
ligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 780–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.91.4.780
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psycho-
logical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Butler, R. (2012). Striving to connect: Extending an achievement goal approach to teacher motivation to
include relational goals for teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 726–742. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0028613
*Byers, D. L., Caltabiano, N., & Caltabiano, M. (2011). Teachers’ attitudes towards overt and covert
bullying, and perceived efficacy to intervene. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(11), 8.
https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2011v36n11.1
Calkins, S. D., & Hill, A. (2009). Caregiver influences on emerging emotion regulation: Biological and
environmental transactions in early development. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regula-
tion (pp. 229–248). Guilford Press.
Cavell, T. (1990). Social adjustment, social performance, and social skills: A tri-component model of
social competence. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 19(2), 111–122. https://
doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp1902_2
*Corcoran, R. P., & Tormey, R. (2013). Does emotional intelligence predict student teachers’ perfor-
mance? Teaching and Teacher Education, 35, 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.04.008
Craig, W. M., Henderson, K., & Murphy, J. G. (2000). Prospective teachers’ attitudes toward bullying and
victimization. School Psychology International, 21(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034300
211001
*Curci, A., Lanciano, T., & Soleti, E. (2014). Emotions in the classroom: The role of teachers’ emotional
intelligence ability in predicting students’ achievement. The American Journal of Psychology,
127(4), 421–445. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.127.4.0431
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of
Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.44.1.113
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cog-
nitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534582304267187
*Dedousis-Wallace, A., & Shute, R. (2009). Indirect bullying: Predictors of teacher intervention, and
outcome of a pilot educational presentation about impact on adolescent mental health. Australian
Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 9, 2–17.
Downer, J. T., Stuhlman, M., Schweig, J., Martinez, J. F., & Ruzek, E. (2014). Measuring effective
teacher-student interactions from a student perspective: A multi-level analysis. The Journal of
Early Adolescence, 35(5-6), 722–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614564059
DuBois, D. L., & Felner, R. D. (2003). The quadripartite model of social competence: Theory and appli-
cations to clinical intervention. In M. A. Reinecke, F. M. Datillio, & A. Freeman (Eds.), Cognitive
therapy with children and adolescents: A casebook for clinical practice (pp. 402–433). Guilford
Press.
13
Eccles, J. S., & Midgley, C. (1989). Stage-environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for
young adolescents. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Vol. 3.
Goals and cognitions (pp. 139–186). Academic Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and relation to proso-
cial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 14(2), 131–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991640
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 101(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91
Elliott, R., Bohart, A. C., Watson, J. C., & Murphy, D. (2018). Therapist empathy and client outcome: An
updated meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000175
Emmer, E. T., & Stough, L. M. (2001). Classroom management: A critical part of educational psychol-
ogy, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 103–112. https://
doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3602_5
Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014a). Grundschulunterricht aus Schüler-,
Lehrer- und Beobachterperspektive: Zusammenhänge und Vorhersage von Lernerfolg [Teaching
quality in primary school from the perspectives of students, teachers, and external observers: Rela-
tionships between perspectives and prediction of student achievement]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogis-
che Psychologie, 28(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652/a000129
Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014b). Student ratings of teaching quality
in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29,
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001
*Fifield, A. O. (2011). College professors’ perceptions of and responses to relational aggression in col-
lege students [Doctoral dissertation, Auburn University]. ProQuest.
*Franklin, M. M. (2014). Teacher impact on the academic achievement of students of poverty [Doctoral
Dissertation, Trident University International]. ProQuest.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build
theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.56.3.218
Frenzel, A. C., Becker-Kurz, B., Pekrun, R., & Goetz, T. (2015). Teaching this class drives me nuts!
Examining the person and context specificity of teacher emotions. PLoS One, 10(6), e0129630.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129630
*Friedman, S. (2014). Teacher emotional intelligence and the quality of their interactions with students
[Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University]. ProQuest.
*Fults, J. R. (2019). Identifying teacher emotional-social competencies that predict positive & negative
relationships with students [Doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green State University]. OhioLINK.
Retrieved January 7, 2021, from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?acces
sion=bgsu1555620765498101&disposition=inline
*Garner, P. W., Moses, L. K., & Waajid, B. (2013). Prospective teachers’ awareness and expression of
emotions: Associations with proposed strategies for behavioral management in the classroom. Psy-
chology in the Schools, 50(5), 471–488. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21688
*Ghanizadeh, A., & Moafian, F. (2010). The role of EFL teachers’ emotional intelligence in their success.
ELT Journal, 64(4), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccp084
*Gottesman, D. E. (2016). Preparing teachers to work with students with emotional regulation difficulties
[Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York]. ProQuest.
*Hall, P. C. (2009). Potential predictors of student teaching performance: Considering emotional intel-
ligence [Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah Graduate School]. ProQuest.
*Hammel, E. F. (2013). An investigation of teachers’ beliefs about relational aggression among girls
[Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York]. ProQuest.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade class-
room make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76(5), 949–967.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00889.x
Hascher, T. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research approaches to assess student well-being. Inter-
national Journal of Educational Research, 47(2), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2007.11.016
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psy-
chological Science, 2(3), 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953
*Heckathorn, P. W. (2013). The relation of instructor emotional intelligence with classroom climate in
evening masters’ programs for adults [Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia].
ProQuest.
13
*Hines, M. P. (2013). Middle school teacher efficacy, concern for bullying, empathy for victims, per-
sonal experience with bullying, principal emotional intelligence toward conflict, principal behav-
ior regarding bullying and willingness to intervene [Doctoral dissertation, Dowling College].
ProQuest.
Hojat, M., Louis, D. Z., Markham, F. W., Wender, R., Rabinowitz, C., & Gonnella, J. S. (2011).
Physiciansʼ empathy and clinical outcomes for diabetic patients. Academic Medicine, 86(3), 359–
364. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182086fe1
*Hu, B. Y., Chen, L., & Fan, X. (2018). Profiles of teacher-child interaction quality in preschool class-
rooms and teachers’ professional competence features. Educational Psychology, 38(3), 264–285.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1328488
*Huang, H., Liu, Y., & Chen, Y. (2018). Preservice preschool teachers’ responses to bullying scenarios:
The roles of years of study and empathy. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 175. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2018.00175
Ickes, W. (2001). Measuring empathic accuracy. In J. A. Hall & F. J. Bernieri (Eds.), Interpersonal sensi-
tivity: Theory and measurement (pp. 219–241). Taylor and Francis.
Jennings, P. A. (2015). Early childhood teachers’ well-being, mindfulness, and self-compassion in rela-
tion to classroom quality and attitudes towards challenging students. Mindfulness, 6(4), 732–743.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0312-4
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial classroom: Teacher social and emotional com-
petence in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 79(1),
491–525. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325693
Jennings, P. A., Brown, J. L., Frank, J. L., Doyle, S., Oh, Y., Davis, R., Rasheed, D., DeWeese, A.,
DeMauro, A. A., Cham, H., & Greenberg, M. T. (2017). Impacts of the CARE for teachers pro-
gram on teachers’ social and emotional competence and classroom interactions. Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology, 109, 1010–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000187
Joseph, D. L., & Newman, D. A. (2010). Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cas-
cading model. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 54–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017286
Kardos, P., Leidner, B., Pléh, C., Soltész, P., & Unoka, Z. (2017). Empathic people have more friends:
Empathic abilities predict social network size and position in social network predicts empathic
efforts. Social Networks, 50(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2017.01.004
Karing, C., Dörfler, T., & Artelt, C. (2013). How accurate are teacher and parent judgements of lower
secondary school children’s test anxiety? Educational Psychology, 35(8), 909–925. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01443410.2013.814200
Keller, M. M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2016). Teacher enthusiasm: Reviewing and
redefining a complex construct. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 743–769. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10648-015-9354-y
*Khodadady, E. (2012). Emotional intelligence and its relationship with English teaching effectiveness.
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2061–2072. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.10.
2061-2072
Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras Study: Investigating effects of teaching and
learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In J. Tomáš & T. Seidel (Eds.), The power
of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Waxmann.
Klingbeil, D. A., & Renshaw, T. L. (2018). Mindfulness-based interventions for teachers: A meta-anal-
ysis of the emerging evidence base. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(4), 501–511. https://doi.org/
10.1037/spq0000291
Klusmann, U., Richter, D., & Lüdtke, O. (2016). Teachers’ emotional exhaustion is negatively related
to students’ achievement: Evidence from a large-scale assessment study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 108(8), 1193–1203. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000125
Knobloch Coetzee, S., & Klopper, H. C. (2010). Compassion fatigue within nursing practice: A con-
cept analysis. Nursing & Health Sciences, 12(2), 235–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2018.
2010.00526.x
Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and
teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 231–251. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10984-006-9015-7
Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional
competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 105(3), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032583
13
Langenbach, M., & Aagaard, L. (1990). A factor analytic study of the Adult Classroom Environment
Scale. Adult Education Quarterly, 40(2), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/000184819004000
2003
*Latchaw, J. (2017). Online postsecondary student perception of instructor emotional intelligence and
student performance: A quantitative correlational study (Publication No. 10100864) [Doctoral
dissertation, Northcentral University]. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Lee, M., Pekrun, R., Taxer, J. L., Schutz, P. A., Vogl, E., & Xie, X. (2016). Teachers’ emotions and
emotion management: Integrating emotion regulation theory with emotional labor research.
Social Psychology of Education, 19(4), 843–863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-016-9359-5
MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. D. (2008). New paradigms for assessing emotional intelligence: Theory
and data. Emotion, 8(4), 540–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012746
Martin, K. M., & Huebner, E. S. (2007). Peer victimization and prosocial experiences and emotional
well-being of middle school students. Psychology in the Schools, 44(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/
10.1002/pits.20216
Marx, A. K. G., Frenzel, A. C., Pekrun, R., Reck, C., & Müller, M. (2019, August). Teachers’ and learn-
ers’ emotional experiences in class: Using automated facial action coding. Paper presented at the
European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) annual conference.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52,
397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.),
Emotional development and emotional intelligence: Educational implications (pp. 3–31). Basic
Books.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. (2002). Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test
(MSCEIT): User’s manual. Multi-Health Systems.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual
Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646
*Metaxas, M. J. (2018). Teachers’ emotional intelligence as a predisposition for discrimination against
students with severe emotional and behavioural disorders [Doctoral dissertation, Federation Uni-
versity Australia]. CORE. Retrieved January 8, 2021, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/213002709.
pdf
Mitsopoulou, E., & Giovazolias, T. (2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behavior: A meta-
analytic approach. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 21, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.
01.007
Nett, U. E., Goetz, T., & Daniels, L. M. (2010). What to do when feeling bored? Learning and Individual
Differences, 20(6), 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.004
Nie, Y., & Lau, S. (2009). Complementary roles of care and behavioral control in classroom manage-
ment: The self-determination theory perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(3),
185–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2009.03.001
*Nizielski, S., Hallum, S., Lopes, P. N., & Schutz, A. (2012). Attention to student needs mediates the
relationship between teacher emotional intelligence and student misconduct in the classroom. Jour-
nal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(4), 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282912449439
O’Connor, K. E. (2008). “You choose to care”: Teachers, emotions and professional identity. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 24(1), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.008
*O’Shea, M. (2019). The role of teacher emotional intelligence in determining relationship quality with
students [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest.
*Okonofua, J. A., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G. M. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage empathic dis-
cipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 113(19), 5221–5226. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.15236
98113
Olderbak, S., & Wilhelm, O. (2020). Overarching principles for the organization of socioemotional con-
structs. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(1), 63–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637
21419884317
Olderbak, S., Sassenrath, C., Keller, J., & Wilhelm, O. (2014). An emotion-differentiated perspective on
empathy with the emotion specific empathy questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 653. https://
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00653
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... Moher,
D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
13
Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., Pierczynski,
M., & Allen, M. (2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Edu-
cational Research, 88(2), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated
learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psy-
chologist, 37(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4
Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioural validation in two studies
of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17(1),
39–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.466
*Petsos, K., & Gorizidis, G. (2019). The role of PE teachers’ emotional intelligence in their interpersonal
behaviors with their students. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 54(1), 26–39.
Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. American Psychological
Association.
Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom
processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–
119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09332374
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Mintz, S. (2012). Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): Sec-
ondary Manual. Teachstone.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
*Polat, S., & Ulusoy-Oztan, Y. (2009). Relationship between emotional intelligence of primary school
fourth and fifth grade students and their instructors [Paper presentation]. Second European Net-
work for Socio-Emotional Competence in Children Conference.
*Poulou, M. S. (2017). The relation of teachers’ emotional intelligence and students’ social skills to stu-
dents’ emotional and behavioral difficulties: A study of preschool teachers’ perceptions. Early Edu-
cation and Development, 28(8), 996–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1320890
*Poulou, M. S., Bassett, H. H., & Denham, S. A. (2018). Teachers’ perceptions of emotional intelligence
and social-emotional learning: Students’ emotional and behavioral difficulties in U.S. and Greek
preschool classrooms. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32(3), 363–377. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02568543.2018.1464980
Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2002). Empathy: Its ultimate and proximate bases. The Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 25(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x02000018
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Hamre, B. K. (2010). The role of psychological and developmental science in
efforts to improve teacher quality. Teachers College Record, 112, 2988–3023.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Storm, M. D., Sawyer, B. E., Pianta, R. C., & LaParo, K. M. (2006). The Teacher
Belief Q-Sort: A measure of teachers’ priorities in relation to disciplinary practices, teaching prac-
tices, and beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology, 44(2), 141–165. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jsp.2006.01.003
Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships: As developed in
the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Study 1, Volume
3: Formulations of the person and the social context (pp. 184–256). McGraw-Hill.
Roorda, D. L., Jak, S., Zee, M., Oort, F. J., & Koomen, H. M. Y. (2017). Affective teacher–student rela-
tionships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the medi-
ating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(3), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.17105/
SPR-2017-0035.V46-3
Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Development,
6(1), 111–135.
Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). How
teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer related-
ness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42, 95–103. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P. (1995). Emotional attention,
clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J.
W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125–154). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10182-006
Scherer, K. R. (1984). On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach. In K.
R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293–318). Psychology Press.
13
Scherer, R., Nilsen, T., & Jansen, M. (2016). Evaluating individual students’ perceptions of instruc-
tional quality: An investigation of their factor structure, measurement invariance, and relations
to educational outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.
00110
Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A
systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. https://doi.org/
10.1037/bul0000098
Sened, H., Lavidor, M., Lazarus, G., Bar-Kalifa, E., Rafaeli, E., & Ickes, W. (2017). Empathic accu-
racy and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(6),
742–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000320
Shen, B., McCaughtry, N., Martin, J., Garn, A., Kulik, N., & Fahlman, M. (2015). The relationship
between teacher burnout and student motivation. The British Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 85(4), 519–532. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12089
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4–14.
*Singh, J. (2014). The relationship between public middle school teachers’ reports of their empathy
and their reports of their likelihood of intervening in a bullying situation: An action research
study [Doctoral dissertation, University of Hartford]. ProQuest.
Slavin, R., & Smith, D. (2009). The relationship between sample sizes and effect sizes in systematic
reviews in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 500–506. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0162373709352369
Śmieja, M., Orzechowski, J., & Stolarski, M. S. (2014). TIE: An ability test of emotional intelligence.
PLoS One, 9(7), e103484. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103484
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced
multilevel modeling (2nd ed.) SAGE.
*Sokol, N., Bussey, K., & Rapee, R. M. (2016). The impact of victims’ responses on teacher reactions to
bullying. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.002
Spinath, B. (2005). Akkuratheit der Einschätzung von Schülermerkmalen durch Lehrer und das Kon-
strukt der diagnostischen Kompetenz [Accuracy of teacher judgments on student characteristics
and the construct of diagnostic competence]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 19, 85–95.
*Swartz, R. A., & McElwain, N. L. (2012). Preservice teachers’ emotion-related regulation and cogni-
tion: Associations with teachers’ responses to children’s emotions in early childhood classrooms.
Early Education and Development, 202–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2012.619392
*Tettegah, S. (2007). Pre-service teachers, victim empathy, and problem solving using animated narrative
vignettes. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 5, 41–68.
Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified
methodology. Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/25364
2160_How_to_calculate_effect_sizes_from_published_research_A_simplified_methodology
Trauernicht, M., Oppermann, E., Klusmann, U., & Anders, Y. (2021). Burnout undermines empathis-
ing: Do induced burnout symptoms impair cognitive and affective empathy? Cognition & Emotion,
35(1), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2020.1806041
*Underwood, S. S. (2010). Teacher empathy and its impact on bullying in schools [Doctoral dissertation,
Tennessee State University]. ProQuest.
Vachon, D. D., Lynam, D. R., & Johnson, J. A. (2014). The (non)relation between empathy and aggres-
sion: Surprising results from a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 751–773. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0035236
Van der Schalk, J., Hawk, S. T., Fischer, A. H., & Doosje, B. (2011). Moving faces, looking places:
Validation of the Amsterdam Dynamic Facial Expression Set (ADFES). Emotion, 11(4), 907–920.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023853
*VanZoeren, S. A. (2015). The influence of individual and perceived organizational characteristics
on teacher interventions in bullying situations [Doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University].
ProQuest.
Voss, T., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2011). Assessing teacher candidates’ general pedagogical/psycho-
logical knowledge: Test construction and validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4),
952–969. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025125
Wagner, W., Göllner, R., Werth, S., Voss, T., Schmitz, B., & Trautwein, U. (2016). Student and teacher
ratings of instructional quality: Consistency of ratings over time, agreement, and predictive power.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(5), 705–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000075
13
Wang, M.-T., & Eccles, J. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on
three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83(3),
877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x
Warren, C. A. (2015). Scale of teacher empathy for African American males (S-TEAAM): Measuring
teacher conceptions and the application of empathy in multicultural classroom settings. Journal of
Negro Education, 84, 154–174. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.84.2.0154
Watt, H. M. G., Butler, R., & Richardson, P. W. (2021). Antecedents and consequences of teachers’ goal
profiles in Australia and Israel. Learning and Instruction, 80(5), 101491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
learninstruc.2021.101491
Weinert, F. E. (2001). Concept of competence: A conceptual clarification. In D. S. Rychen & L. H. Sal-
ganik (Eds.), Defining and selecting key competencies (pp. 45–65). Hogrefe & Huber.
Weisz, E., Ong, D. C., Carlson, R. W., & Zaki, J. (2020). Building empathy through motivation-based
interventions. Emotion. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000929
*Wen, W. (2020). Influence of emotional intelligence on the performance of college law teachers. Revista
Argentina De Clínica Psicológica, 29(1), 499–505.
Wispé, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: To call forth a concept, a word is
needed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.50.2.314
Wong, C.-S., & Law, K. S. (2002). The effects of leader and follower emotional intelligence on perfor-
mance and attitude: An exploratory study. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 243–274.
*Wu, Y., Lian, K., Hong, P., Liu, S., Lin, R.-M., & Lian, R. (2019). Teachers’ emotional intelligence and
self-efficacy: Mediating role of teaching performance. Social Behavior and Personality: An Inter-
national Journal, 47(3), 1–10.
Wubbels, T., Brekelmans, M., & Hooymayers, H. (1993). Comparison of teachers’ and students’ percep-
tions of interpersonal teacher behavior. In T. Wubbels & J. Levy (Eds.), Do you know what you
look like? Interpersonal relationships in education (pp. 64–80). Falmer Press.
Yildirim, S. (2012). Teacher support, motivation, learning strategy use, and achievement: A multilevel
mediation model. Journal of Experimental Education, 80(2), 150–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00220973.2011.596855
*Yoon, J. S. (2004). Predicting teacher interventions in bullying situations. Education and Treatment of
Children, 27(1), 37–45.
Zins, J. E., Bloodworth, M. R., Weissberg, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (2004). The scientific base linking
social and emotional learning to school success. In J. E. Zins, R. P. Weissberg, M. C. Wang, & H.
J. Walberg (Eds.), Building academic success on social and emotional learning: What does the
research say? (pp. 3–22). Teachers College Press.
*Zinsser, K. M., Denham, S. A., Curby, T. W., & Shewark, E. A. (2015). “Practice what you preach”:
Teachers’ perceptions of emotional competence and emotionally supportive classroom practices.
Early Education and Development, 26(7), 899–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.10093
20
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.
13
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:
1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com

Is Empathy The Key To Effective Teaching A Systema

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Is Empathy The Key To Effective Teaching A Systema

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educational Psychology Review (2022) 34:1177–1216

Is Empathy the Key to Effective Teaching? A Systematic

Karen Aldrup1 · Bastian Carstensen1 · Uta Klusmann1

Accepted: 3 November 2021 / Published online: 10 March 2022

Keywords Empathy · Emotional intelligence · Social-emotional competence ·

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Students experience a range of emotions—such as enjoyment, anxiety, and bore-

A General Theoretical Perspective on Empathy

Considering the central role of empathy in human relationships, which has

The Role of Teacher Empathy

classroom management knowledges is a key prerequisite (Kunter et al., 2013; Shul-

Assessment Approaches in Researching Teacher Empathy

Researchers interested in investigating teacher empathy can choose between differ-

teacher-student interactions and student development. The relevance of teachers’

We conducted our literature search in PsycINFO and Web of Science in October

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Fig. 2 PRISMA diagram of the literature search process

Processing of Search Results

General Study Characteristics

This research synthesis is based on 23 journal articles, 15 theses, two proceedings

teacher-student interactions and student outcomes

Likely punitive behavior

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Authors Year Type N Empathy Teacher-student Student outcomes #r #α rrange

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Aspects of Empathy and Measurement

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Effects on Teacher‑Student Interactions

We identified 33 studies (34 samples) investigating the role of empathy in teacher-

General Teacher‑Student Interaction

Three out of five studies measuring blended aspects of teacher-student interactions

The number of studies finding a statistically significantly positive association

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Emotional Support Six studies found statistically significant positive associations

Likelihood to Intervene in Bullying Nine of the twelve studies in this strand of

Effects on Student Outcomes

We identified twelve studies investigating the role of empathy in student outcomes:

Cognitive Student Outcomes

Psychosocial Student Outcomes

Avenues for Future Research

Dealing with Common Method Bias and the Valid Assessment of Empathy

The majority of studies we reviewed applied teacher self-report measures of empa-

A Profession‑Specific Perspective on Teacher Empathy

Interplay with Other Teacher Characteristics and Students’ Prerequisites

In addition to methodological challenges, our unexpected finding could be because

In this article, we aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of prior

of the included studies. Even though follow-up analyses revealed no differences

Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the review

You might also like

Fig. 2 PRISMA diagram of the literature search process